JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The case of the complainant is that her husband, Shri Mahesh Kumar Mishra was admitted in Medanta Hospital at Gurgaon in emergency condition on 03-02-2013 and PTCA-LED was performed on him. The husband of the complainant expired on 27-02-2013. Alleging negligence in his treatment and deficiency in services provided to him, the complainant is seeking compensation amounting to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The prayer clause of the complaint reads as under:

          “16. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to entertain the complaint issue notice to the respondent and after hearing the parties direct the respondent to:

1. To pay Rs.80945/- on account of short reimbursement from where the husband of the complainant was under employment as Sub Inspector in Police department of U.P retirement along with interest @ of 18% to be calculated from the date of deposit to till its realization.
2. Pay Rs.15,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and unserved liability of one unmarried son.
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for litigation expenses and consultation fee.
4. To pay Rs.64.80 lac as discussed inn para 11 of the complaint.
5. To pay Rs.2559420 + DA which increase every year 10% twice {in the January and July} which is not counted as discussed in para 12 of the complaint.”

2.      This is complainant’s own case that her husband was a contractual employee and was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time he died. If the complainant is paid compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which is the threshold limit for invoking the original jurisdiction of this Commission, the return by way of interest on the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum would be Rs.75,000/- per month which will be more than three and half times the income of the deceased at the time of his death. The pecuniary compensation claimed by the complainant comes to more than Rs.90,00,000/- and the monthly interest which she can earn on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum, would be more than Rs.67,500/- per month. The said amount would be more than three times the monthly income of the deceased who was only a contractual employee, whose services could be terminated at any time. In fact, while computing the pecuniary damages, 1/3 of the income of the deceased has to be deducted on account of the personal expenses he would have incurred. Whichever multiplier I may apply, the pecuniary damages cannot come anywhere near the amount claimed by the complainant. The claim for non pecuniary damages has been restricted by the complainant to Rs.15,00,000/-. By no stretch of logic and reasoning the pecuniary damages can come to Rs.84,00,000/- - Rs.85,00,000/-, so as to bring the matter within the original jurisdiction of this Commission.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that if the Commission passes an order to this effect he will file his complaint before an appropriate forum. It appears to me that the complainant has inflated the amount of compensation only with a view to bring the complaint within the original jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant, in my view ought to approach the State Commission/District Forum as the case may be, after making a realistic assessment of the compensation to which she may be entitled in law; considering the income of the deceased at the time of his death. The complaint, therefore, is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the concerned State Commission/District Forum as the case may be.